Kerry & missile defense: Failing America
Secretary of State John Kerry must be exhausted. After all, dumbing down your nation's missile defenses in furthering your president's foreign policy of deferentialism is tiring work.
Over the past couple of weeks, Mr. Kerry has been laying the groundwork for side deals that will make the United States less safe while emboldening our enemies. Aside from that obvious outrage, he's also kept Congress in the dark.
Just last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov revealed that Kerry had made “suggestions” for missile defense talks. Which raised the ire of Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's subcommittee for strategic forces.
“I suggest he consult with Congress about deals it won't possibly support prior to offering concessions with countries that are not friends of ours,” Mr. Rogers said.
The Russian mess comes fast on the heel of a bow to the Chinese. Two weeks ago, Kerry signaled that the Obama administration is ready to bargain away upgraded missile defenses in Alaska and California. That, in return for placating the nut jobs in Pyongyang.
And that in a climate in which the Chinese, in the midst of a major nuke ramp-up, have abandoned their “no-first-use” pledge (according to The Washington Free Beacon).
Reminds the Marshall Institute, “Adequate defenses are a moral imperative for a government charged with protecting the lives of its citizens.” It's an imperative that John Kerry now treats as a bargaining chip.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.